The court established that compensation for loss of consortium is essential and should reflect the emotional and relational loss to the family, alongside fair assessment of income for dependency loss.

JUDGMENT :

1. The claimants are the legal heirs and representatives of Mukeshbhai Kantibhai Solanki, who have challenged the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Anand dated 03.12.2019 in M.A.C.P. No.777 of 2014 praying for enhancement.

2. Advocate Mr. R.G. Dwivedi for Advocate Mr. Pradeep R.Mishra for the appellants submitted that the income of the deceased has been considered as Rs.4,500/-, as minimum wages. Advocate Mr. Dwivedi contended that as per the schedule for the date of accident as 03.11.2014, it should be around Rs.6,000/-, as the claimant was a farm labourer, and his age was 32 years, thus, accordingly 40% rise in prospective income was required to be added, as considered by the Tribunal.

3. Advocate Mr. Dwivedi further stated that the learned Tribunal has referred to the judgment of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) SCC 130 [2018 ACJ 2782], however, has not granted money as consortium loss to the children and the parents.

4. Per contra, Mr. Maulik Shelat for the insurance company submitted that the claimants are required to prove the income by way of cogent evidence, and even otherwise, if the evidence is to be considered, then the claimants had stated that the deceased was getting Rs.200/- per day by doing agriculture labour work, and, thus stated that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation.

5. The facts pleaded for the accident before the Tribunal shows that on 03.11.2014, the deceased was on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-23 AE-5088, and was on the road from Bechri to Bharoda; at that time, opponent no.1, came driving his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-23 AP-8964, alleging to be on the wrong side of the road, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the human life, dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, he received grievous injuries and died during the medical treatment.

6. The Tribunal has considered the FIR, panchnama of scene of offence, inquest panchnama, P.M. Note and R.C. Book of the offending vehicle, even the insurance policy together with chargesheet, and has concluded about the negligence, attributing 80% of the other offending motorcyclist, while 20% of the deceased driver.

6.1 The income as per the minimum wages, if taken on the date of accident as 03.11.2014, would come around Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, this Court considers it appropriate to assess the monthly income as Rs.6,000/-.

6.2 Considering the age of the deceased, 40% prospective rise in income is assessed, and 1/4th deduction is required to be made; thus the yearly future loss would come as under:

6.3 The multiplier applied would be 16; hence, the future dependency loss would come to Rs.12,09,600/- (75,600 x 16). Thus, accordingly the claimants would be entitled to Rs.5,99,940/- as dependency loss.

7. In the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, it has been observed as under:-

“8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.

In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.

The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family.

With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. (Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 54) Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the